tv [untitled] May 19, 2013 2:00am-2:31am PDT
>> i would like to know in terms of since you are introduce substitute legislation tomorrow in terms of the modifications that trigger a new cadet, how is that defined in your legislation? well, i guess, we don't define anything in our legislation. what we've written into that legislation is that if there is a modification that requires an e ro into the project that there can be an appeal for that decision. i don't know how that process even comes to the ero. so i guess if you can explain that? >> that's a question, if in the situation i described where someone realizes that there is something rather small that
needs to change and they go to the department of building inspection, would that ultimately would the ero make a determination. >> if the project comes back that required original review by the planning department, it will be returned. it will be r returned to the planning department and essentially treated in the manner that it was treated for it's original environmental review. if the planner at the counter could give it an exemption over the counter, it goes back through that process. if it was a larger project that was requiring a more in depth environmental analysis or more in depth permitting analysis, it would go back to the planner who did the work and to the
environmental planner who did the work. with regard to the question about project scope, when we issue and exemption, we have certain needs we need to know about the project to make the determination that it's exempt. we need to know the considerations about the building itself, so what the age is, what the historic resource status is of the building and we need to know the size of the project. how many square feet, where on the property, is it raising a building at all. we need to understand the project in order to say it's exempt in the first place. >> if i may, when something comes back in the middle of construction now, did -- does the planning department make the determination that it
requires a new cadet? >> yes. we do make that determination now. >> so something in the back of middle of construction that maybe the planning department would note, we don't issue and additional cadet. >> cadet is a rigid document. >> there are situations where it doesn't need a new cadet? >> yes. in it's not regulated under the planning code. it's not a -- it doesn't change the square footage. it doesn't change set backs. if it's a change to where your kitchen is going, that doesn't need an exemption. >> how about the need to change your window over two inches. >> that would require circumstances where there was
problem is the language is so broad what is the scope? is that 3 inches, 6 inches. if it's that undefined and that broad then it becomes a problem for us. if even as i read this, anytime the ero is this is within the scope from cadet, that can be an appealed to the board of supervisors. >> we have a serious concern about that. it's another way of getting at multiple appeals. one can say it's pealing a decision. we have a serious concern about those that those are endless appeals. >> this would trigger a new potential appeal every time the ero proposes that this mean or change doesn't require a cadet and n on one
project. >> what is required in a project currently when you pose an exemption? is that really clearly laid out. it doesn't depend on the project? >> there is a project description when you have a project that is eligible for an exemption by the checklist that we use, it's more of a checking off of categories of things in the project description. so you are saying there is an interior alterations, window replacements , when we do a written certificate of exemption, there
is project description that is usually couple paragraphs long and it describes the building, what's existing on the property whether it's vacant, the size, the age and any structure on the property and also describes what is proposed, how many units, how many square feet >> that to me is a city problem. it's not a problem of the legislation that we are putting forward. that's something the city is doing internally. every time a window moves, that's not within any of
the ordinances currently. >> except for historic building i get. anything do you to a historic building that's significant. how long do you get a window movement for a new look. >> i think what we can say with certainty if they september -- sent over a window movement it would not require a categorical exemption. >> how much does that really happen? because that to me is an issue that is inter departmental. >> that is an issue that is being worked on by our director of current planning along with the building inspection in terms of setting out the requirement for when projects are referred back to planning.
>> the question is that they don't. to be clear the way i read this is that if under this proposal, a change in scope, there is a question of what does that mean because someone argued then that moving a window a few inches doesn't constitute an approach. that is the concern. it isn't that they do it. it's that would this open the door to allow people to say it would constitute the change. >> i guess way i'm reading it and i just got this today during committee. i have to look at this in more detail. it seems that if any person or entity appeal the eir, following written notice given
pursuant of this code to following that notice. what i'm reading here is that and correct me if i am wrong, there is no modification if it hepatitis hasn't an appealed that determination. there is nothing for the public to appeal. that's the way i'm reading that language. >> if you read the beginning of that paragraph at the bottom of page 16 for purposes of exempt project. >> i'm on page 47. appeal of determinations on modified projects. i apologize if i'm talking about something totally different. >> yeah. they do link together. >> modification requiring
reevaluation shall mean. and that's where it says the change in scope and that's the challenge. >> i guess, i'm sorry, i will be done after this. i think that we need to define what the scope is and what a change in modification is. i think that clarity would help everyone and there is less of a fear on planning side in terms of what an appeal might light look -- look like and a change in modification would be determined. >> if you go back to the first clause in that section on page 16, line 21, where a modification that determines to be exempt, the ero shall reevaluate the project make
a determination pursuant to this chapter. it actually mandates a reevaluation. in terms of one and two is another example. according to this, if it's in the original application and when someone files an original application they might include predetailed description on what they want to do depending on the application and we could have a situation where people are saying, why didn't you read you are required to reevaluate that small change and i want to appeal again and you should have done it and i'm appealing to the board of supervisors. i hope that the language is in the meeting of this requirement.
that was on page 12 of the may 7th version. starting online 13. as provided for in section 31.19 b, should consider the project rather than the original application submit to the planning department and for determination. if it exceeds the scope of the original project for any aspect under the project regulated under the planning code or introduces a new use, then the environment review officer shall issue a new exemption determination or if the project is no longer
eligible, they shall inform the sponsor that the initial study is required. obviously it's easier to see the language when you are reading it rather than from me just saying it. i feel that this language what i would take if this is being modified and reviewed, it exceeds any of the parameters of the project as originally described
>> from practice of reviewing projects, this is a very clear direction as to what is not in an original cadet that was issued. this language in my view captures the guidance that is needed as to giving indication as to what needs a new cadet and what wasn't. >> colleagues, questions? >> i think i know this conversation has been going on for a while. let me try to wrap up with two questions. there were a must be of edits around the issue of substantial evidence and standards i think we all agree is what ought to hold true understate ceqa law.
and there are additional changes made to put back in evidence. i wonder if city planning attorney if you have any information on that >> i think you maybe referring to a particular language that is in supervisor wiener's ordinance in section 3110 f. that is language that is taken directly from the ceqa guidelines and it appears that this proposal would alter that language. i think certainly our recommendation would be for using language under the ceqa guidelines, that we should keep the language the same as in
guidelines and not change, not appear to be changing ceqa somehow by changing that language. however we intentioned it might be. >> if i may comment on that. i have, while i have been very much respect the disagreement about whether the deadline should be the first approval versus the last approval whether a hearing should occur at the full board. there have been a number of very good faith policies on this and we are having a debate, this is one of the ones where i think it's been a real red herring from the beginning. ceqa controls, whether it's defined from the argument. in the very beginning when the city attorney drafted the legislation that i introduced the goal was to m ines. we mad
number of changes in terms of the standard, to try to clarify to make it as crystal clear to as in addition to not make it the power the standard of the ceqa. when we have objection to an actual lining that the city attorney has quoted words very verbatim. >> whether it's publically funding social projects. there
prioritizing in our department. there is a bulletin that certain types of projects should come to the cue when it's proposed. typically all public projects come to the front of the cue. when the city department's propose a project we bring those to the front of the cue as well as affordable housing project. >> given that body that in planning code ? >> it's just that it creates a situation where it's much harder to change it if we choose to change it along the way. it's only one type of project. there is so many other projects that people want to prioritize. that's my only concern about codifying something. >> many of us believe as the projects in regards to
affordable housing and pedestrian safety, we want to think about these in prioritizing. just mulling over whether there is language to include that. colleagues i appreciate your discussion in this discussion and one of the things i will be doing over the next week is engaging planning staff with community folks and these issues to see if we can boil them down to common areas that we can agree on. but look forward continue conversation on it. >> i had some continuing questions on the hundred percent affordable housing project. i know that current it's under the administrative process that they do get moved up the cue, they get assigned a planner within two weeks and the completeness of the application should be two weeks after that. how long does it typically take then to get a determination from that point? >> i have to ask -- to answer
that question. >> the way we treat that and the priority is they get assigned a planner right away and throughout their environmental reviewrocess, they are dealwith ahead of any other projects that a planner might have going on at the time. for all of the aspect of the process that are within our control, we do what we can to deal with those projects first and move them through process as quickly as possible. in terms of the question of the determination as to what type of environmental review they need, we actually in a lot of cases now are able to make that determination even before a project comes in. we do a preliminary project assessment and we can flag if we know for certain that a project will
not be able to get an exemption. for that study, it acomplex situation and there are technical studies to be done, that can be a process that is lengthier. there is time that is spent in order to do the appropriate documents for the project. >> this is initial study to see if it would lead to a nag dec or full eir? >> this is to where we need to prepare an additional study leading to a nag dec or eir.
>> if we don't need to do a technical study, we make the decision during the initial assessment of the project. it's within a couple weeks basically. but we will identify those studies. we can rule out whether a project is eligible for an exemption relatively quickly although sometimes as a result of the technical studies we are surprised but a decision to whether a nag dec. it can
depend on a number of issues. i'm sorry i'm not able to give a more specific answer. we try to make that determination as quickly as possible or narrow down the possibilities. >> i only say this because as we are exploring language around affordable housing that is funding, it was pointed out to us that the state has it's own requirements. i'm not sure if we are following this requirement. the lead agency shall determine if it's needed. so the state has that deadline and that's the planning department. i would hope that we are doing that within the 30 days and this is for all
projects. this suspect just a hundred percent affordable housing. >> i guess we are doing that within the 30 days but what happens sometimes when you do the technical studies is you identify ways to change the projects so it doesn't have significant impacts anymore and you can do an exemption. so sometimes as the project evolves which you can say actually project is not technically complete until it's fully defind. as the project evolves that decision as to the appropriate environmental document is changed. >> from the moment that you deem an application complete, then do you do this within 30 days. either the initial study or the exemption?
>> yes we follow the state law. these are complicated decisions and as i say when the project changes and we are then able to get a revised project application in, we no longer would have a complete project application. >> as long as the application is complete, we take 30 days to provide an exemption or have an additional study. we've always done that and we do the initial study. >> we are not counting the days, but yes we are making the determines. we are making that determination at least initially just to take the application in because it affects what fee we take in with the project. the substantive answer to your
question is yes. >> i guess i ask because the recommendation by the council to me how is the organization within 60 days to two weeks for planner and 30 days to get a determination. so within state law that would actually work. within our current planning what's currently in our administrative process which is four weeks plus state law, it would be 60 days. >> i just want to be really concerned about being forced into making what is a very important determination prematurely to some degree that making that determination prematurely is one of the biggest mistakes that you can make in the ceqa process if you are trying to pass up a project that in fact does have significant impacts as not having significant impacts. so
i feel that we would be able to have the studies that we need to conduct in order to make that determination and you cannot conduct technical studies in that period of time. >> if we allow some type of, i guess i'm trying to explore this more because i think it's important to a lot of us because i think one of the rationalize that why we need to install ceqa is affordable housing and parks, if that's the problem we are solving for then what can we do for this project if the projects that the city can move forward, affordable housing, safety and bike lane. what else